Summary and Analysis of Pernod Ricard India Private Limited & Anr. v. Karanveer Singh Chhabra

1. Heading of the Judgment

Pernod Ricard India Private Limited & Anr. v. Karanveer Singh Chhabra
(Supreme Court of India, Civil Appeal No. 10638 of 2025, decided on August 14, 2025)

Citation: Pernod Ricard India Private Limited & Anr. v. Karanveer Singh Chhabra, 2025 INSC 981 (Supreme Court of India).

2. Related Laws and Sections

The judgment interprets key provisions of the Trade Marks Act, 1999:

• Section 2(1)(h): Defines "deceptively similar" marks.

• Section 9: Absolute grounds for refusal of trademark registration.

• Section 11: Relative grounds for refusal (likelihood of confusion).

• Section 15 & 17: Registration of composite marks; exclusive rights apply only to the whole mark, not individual elements.

• Section 28 & 29: Rights conferred by registration and infringement criteria.

• Section 27(2): Recognizes common law remedy of "passing off."

• Section 135: Relief in infringement/passing off suits (injunctions, damages).

3. Basic Judgment Details

• Parties:
  Appellants: Pernod Ricard India (owners of whisky brands "BLENDERS PRIDE," "IMPERIAL BLUE," and "SEAGRAM’S").
  Respondent: Karanveer Singh Chhabra (owner of "LONDON PRIDE" whisky).

• Subject: Appeal against refusal of interim injunction to restrain respondent from using "LONDON PRIDE."

• Courts Below:
  Commercial Court, Indore (26.11.2020): Rejected interim injunction.
  MP High Court (03.11.2023): Upheld Commercial Court’s order.

• Supreme Court’s Decision: Dismissed the appeal. No interim injunction granted.

4. Explanation of the Judgment

Core Issue

Whether "LONDON PRIDE" is deceptively similar to Pernod’s registered marks ("BLENDERS PRIDE," "IMPERIAL BLUE," "SEAGRAM’S"), justifying an interim injunction for trademark infringement/passing off.

Key Legal Principles Applied

1. Anti-Dissection Rule (Section 17):
   Marks must be compared as a whole, not by isolating elements (e.g., "PRIDE").
   Precedent: Kaviraj Pandit Durga Dutt Sharma v. Navaratna Pharmaceutical Laboratories (AIR 1965 SC 980).
   Finding: "BLENDERS PRIDE" and "LONDON PRIDE" are structurally, visually, and phonetically distinct.

2. No Monopoly Over Descriptive/Generic Terms:
   "PRIDE" is a laudatory/generic word common in the liquor trade (e.g., "McDowell’s Pride," "Royal Pride").
   Precedent: Godfrey Philips India Ltd. v. Girnar Food & Beverages Pvt. Ltd. (2004) 5 SCC 257.
   Finding: Pernod cannot claim exclusivity over "PRIDE," which lacks inherent distinctiveness.

3. Average Consumer Test:
   Likelihood of confusion assessed from the perspective of an average consumer with imperfect recollection.
   Precedent: Amritdhara Pharmacy v. Satyadeo Gupta (AIR 1963 SC 449).
   Finding:
   Consumers of premium whisky ("BLENDERS PRIDE") are literate and discerning.
   Dominant elements ("BLENDERS" vs. "LONDON") differ entirely.

4. Trade Dress/Packaging Comparison:
   No deceptive similarity in color scheme (blue/gold), bottle shape, or labels.
   Pernod’s "IMPERIAL BLUE": Dome-shaped label, Seagram’s crest.
   Respondent’s mark: Lion emblem, cylindrical bottle, distinct carton.
   Finding: Overall visual impression is distinct.

5. Interim Injunction Criteria:
   Requires prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable injury.
   Precedent: Wander Ltd. v. Antox India (P) Ltd. (1990 Supp SCC 727).
   Finding:
   No prima facie case of infringement/passing off.
   Balance of convenience favored respondent (no evidence of sales loss).

Critical Observations

• Estoppel Against Pernod:
  Pernod previously admitted before Trademark Registry that "PRIDE" is non-distinctive (Pernod Ricard v. United Spirits Ltd., 2023 SCC OnLine P&H 477).

• Hybrid Pleading Rejected:
  Pernod cannot combine elements of "BLENDERS PRIDE" (word mark) and "IMPERIAL BLUE" (trade dress) to claim infringement by "LONDON PRIDE."

• Functional Bottle Shape:
  Standard bottle designs are not protectable. Embossing "SEAGRAM QUALITY" on respondent’s bottle was unproven.

Outcome

• Appeal dismissed.

• Direction: Commercial Court to conclude trial within 4 months, uninfluenced by interim observations.

Significance

The judgment reinforces that common terms in composite marks cannot be monopolized, and holistic comparison is essential to assess deceptive similarity. Interim relief is denied where no prima facie confusion exists among discerning consumers.